https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78096 A petitioner who was neither a party to, nor directly affected by, the excise dispute lacked locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's direction for final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules. The assessment proceedings were between the excise authorities and the assessee company, and the earlier challenge to that order had already been rejected. The petitioner's claimed reward as an informer had also not accrued, because entitlement depended on finalisation of the assessment and a concluded finding of duty evasion. As no enforceable right to reward had yet arisen, the claim was premature. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78096 A petitioner who was neither a party to, nor directly affected by, the excise dispute lacked locus standi to challenge the Tribunal's direction for final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules. The assessment proceedings were between the excise authorities and the assessee company, and the earlier challenge to that order had already been rejected. The petitioner's claimed reward as an informer had also not accrued, because entitlement depended on finalisation of the assessment and a concluded finding of duty evasion. As no enforceable right to reward had yet arisen, the claim was premature. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78096